janneman said:
Honestly curious, which tests would that be? I don't recall seeing one using a methodology I couldn't take some issue with. I'ld appreciate any links.
rdf said:
Well, I don't collect them. When I see any, I read 'm, because I really am curious. The last two I remember, because I discussed them on the forum, are 'Science in the service of Art" by Floyd Toole (google will find it), the other one was the HiFi+ blind test on cable audibility. I don't think this last article is on-line (unless you pay) but I have posted & discussed some excerpts in the thread: "It's official: all cables sound the same". And yes, that is meant ironically.😉 .
And people like Peter Walker of Quad have done tests that probably can be found on the 'net, as well as difference tests by for instance David Haffler of Dynaco, putting the difference of an attenuated amp output signal and the original source on speakers, getting .... total silence. It pops up once in a while on the net, don't have a easy link ready, sorry.
Jan Didden
slowmotion
back to earth,
i've had all the money i could possibly need for a long time,
just at the moment a lot of resources are focused preciesy at audio fidelity.
if find great analogy between sciense engineering and soul in music, and its very hard, read time consuming, read expensive in the real world to achieve.
what, i'm sure we all want is satisfaction. re previous post.
at present my cheap diy hifi syatem provides this
interconnection cables are an IMPORTANT part.
but only one part
back to earth,
i've had all the money i could possibly need for a long time,
just at the moment a lot of resources are focused preciesy at audio fidelity.
if find great analogy between sciense engineering and soul in music, and its very hard, read time consuming, read expensive in the real world to achieve.
what, i'm sure we all want is satisfaction. re previous post.
at present my cheap diy hifi syatem provides this
interconnection cables are an IMPORTANT part.
but only one part
Carlos,
You are cursed with ears. Maybe you should only have arguments with similarly cursed folks 🙂
Steve Eddy said:
I think this is an excellent analogy and shows we're probably not as far apart in opinion as the funhouse mirror of the Internet would suggest. There's nothing I disagree with here. As you say, our playback systems will always remain 'funhouse mirrors'. However, without going to the extent of using equalizers, noise reduction units, reverbs, DSP and host of other tools to inversely match the 'curvatures of each recording' one by one, our playback systems will generally increase the disparity between not just the original scene before the painter, but the painter's intent on the canvas as well. The painter might not object, or might prefer the listener bringing something to the experience, and the listener might enjoy viewing all the world in one particular funhouse way. There's nothing wrong with that. However, other listeners want to see the original scene as often as possible and there's only one way towards that goal: standardized funhouse curvatures. An example you touched on is the RIAA phono curve, but I think we'ld agree the best posssible curvature to most consistently achieve this goal is optically flat. Ironically this doesn't deny the funhouse mirror fan their preference, admittedly at the expense of having to curve the playback mirror a little more.
That said, I think we'ld also agree perfectly optically flat is an unachievable goal, but there's still a huge range between the photo-realist painters and Jackson Pollock. Eventually we'll run up against the limitation of the media - paintings remain two dimensional - at which point it's time for the next technological jump and a new set funhouse mirrors with their own optical imperfections. Digital recording for example.
/Ducks 🙂
blind test
feel as though i'm intruding,
but blind tests strike of democracy.statistics.
i' know i'm right. hence blind test means very little.
from scientific point of view
thesis
anti-thesis
hypothosis
i'll have to be communist republican
you WILL use 100pf/m cables so i can design output/input buffers that compensate for this.
good luck
feel as though i'm intruding,
but blind tests strike of democracy.statistics.
i' know i'm right. hence blind test means very little.
from scientific point of view
thesis
anti-thesis
hypothosis
i'll have to be communist republican
you WILL use 100pf/m cables so i can design output/input buffers that compensate for this.
good luck
rdf said:
Alright! We're finally on the same wavelength! 🙂
Thanks for taking the time to try and understand what I was wanting to get across.
Don't get me wrong though. I'm not trying to imply that objective perfection isn't a legitimate goal. I'm just saying it's not the only legitimate goal, as some have tried to paint it (not necessarily anyone here).
Certainly.
se
janneman said:
Jan,
You are putting words in my mouth. I NEVER made any such statement concerning the audibility of filters one way or the other. Furthermore as far as my thinkling process, I do think most of the time prefering to come to my own conclusions based on the examination of the facts and my own scientific testing wherever possible. Inotherwords, I do not live in a faith based domain.
As for your last sentence, the existence of billions of religious followers is proof of my statement, so it is NOT merely my own speculation of "how other people do it (think)".
If you have strong 'faith', nothing I say is important to you anyhow, on any subject. I use faith in the broader term because it encompasses so much more than religion, but also inclusive of religion, filters and speaker cables.
Put another way, when you are religiously faithful to a concept, like speaker cables for example, then facts are irrelevant to you.
janneman said:
You are saying exactly the same as me.
Every manufacturer says it's product is the best, so why trust commercial ads?
Why such a surprize that Supra or any other manufacturer can make a really bad cable?
Supra makes a very good cable for digital (SPDIF) connections: Supra Trico.
But the Ply speaker cables are an unfortunate creation, IMHO.
analog_sa said:
Jan is asking for an audible proof that cables make difference.
So...
Or he comes here and listens, or else we are just giving our word, if it has any value.
I really don't know what's the difficulty in changing cables and listening.
It's faster than reading this thread.
Steve Eddy said:
Innane. No, annoying, actually.
An attempt at humor? alright, but why waste time and bandwidth more than it already has been?
Deal with the issue.
_-_-bear
I know quite a few audiophiles but still haven't met anyone who's 'religiously faithful' to cables. They mostly have cynical minds and nothing is presumed to sound good until proven.
Otoh i personally know a few engineers/scientists who feel a deeply burning religious fervour to debunk 'myths' at any cost.
If he was inclined or capable to listen he would probably prefer do so in the comfort of his own home. Which reminds me of an old story.
Shortly after i first listened to solid core speaker cables (1983?) a colleague who was both a learnt music lover and an established scientist visited. He used to enjoy listening to my system and bringing over records. On this particular occassion i suggested a cable comparison. The guy was dumbfounded at the suggestion but reluctantly agreed. So i played a track and swapped cables. He listened for 10 seconds and said there was no difference. Ok, lets swap them back and listen again. This time he was really annoyed - are we really going to listen to the same track for the third time?! Can we not listen to something different now?
'Audiophile' type listening does not suit every personality. Maybe you need some type of brain damage to incessantly listen to the same track over and over. I can well see the nay sayers being more rational human beings. Which probably means they prefer cables to sound the same 🙂
Steve Eddy said:
But what do you consider "the original"?
So, in the end, your point is that if you like the way it sounds, that is all there is.
Which is fine for you, and fine as far as it goes.
But it has nothing whatsoever to do with determining what is audible and what is not with respect to cables or anything else for that matter.
It also has nothing to do with determining what in cables can be found to be differently audible, why it may be so, or what such a mechanism may be - or as I have suggested, what to test for or look for at this point in the "great debate."
_-_-bear
carlosfm said:I really don't know what's the difficulty in changing cables and listening.
It's faster than reading this thread.
Thanks Carlos, I was waiting for someone to say that. 😉
Cal
bear said:
First, it's my time to waste. Let me worry about it.
Second, why do people who are so worried about wasting bandwidth waste so much more of it complaining about it?
More bandwidth would have been conserved had said nothing at all about my post.
Never have figured that one out.
My current pet theory is that it gives those who aren't happy unless they're complaining about something an excuse to complain about something.
se
bear said:
Because the context of the actual recording is the equipment and the environment used to make it.
To reproduce it with objective perfection is to remove it from that context.
Who said anything about predictable?
I don't know. If it ended up sounding better to me, I might.
The conclusion comes from the fact that to date no recording has been made on an objectively perfect system.
Ok.
Ok. But accurately and SOTA as determined by who or what exactly?
Never asid it was impossible. Just very impractical. And you'd only be able to do it for a literal handful of recordings.
Poor analogy. The film is the film and every projector will be able to focus.
A better example would be if films were made based on projectors using bulbs with widely varied color temperatures.
Yes.
But the converse may also be the case.
If something produces a result that sounds like crap, then don't do that something.
Well, I don't listen for anyone else's pleasure by my own so I don't see that it need go any farther.
No, it doesn't.
But no one's REALLY interested in determining that and the "great debate" will continue as it always has and likely always will.
se
Hi,
That's simply not true. The recording is what it is, including what you call "context".
A perfectly neutral playback system will not change the recording nor its "context". How would it distinguish between the two anyway?
That's really not relevant. A good recording does not need to be perfect, neither does the recording gear have to be perfect to make a good recording.
You'll need a good, transparant playback system to appreciate a good recording though. At least I know I would.
Oh, BTW, what on earth has the RIAA curve to do with all this?
Also, I'm still puzzled as to why you think that every filtering used during a recording is put on a medium in reverse??
Which would mean what exactly?
If you're really interested in shaping your systemplayback to your liking then maybe you should be interested....Heaven forbid you may incidentally buy or build a transparant cable....
Either way, I'm sure some people are interested in finding out why not all cables sound the same.............Or not............😕
Cheers,😉
That's simply not true. The recording is what it is, including what you call "context".
A perfectly neutral playback system will not change the recording nor its "context". How would it distinguish between the two anyway?
That's really not relevant. A good recording does not need to be perfect, neither does the recording gear have to be perfect to make a good recording.
You'll need a good, transparant playback system to appreciate a good recording though. At least I know I would.
Oh, BTW, what on earth has the RIAA curve to do with all this?
Also, I'm still puzzled as to why you think that every filtering used during a recording is put on a medium in reverse??
Which would mean what exactly?
If you're really interested in shaping your systemplayback to your liking then maybe you should be interested....Heaven forbid you may incidentally buy or build a transparant cable....
Either way, I'm sure some people are interested in finding out why not all cables sound the same.............Or not............😕
Cheers,😉
Guys, there's an important issue here.
You will never know what's on the disc.
You will never know if you are reproducing it as faithfully as it was recorded.
Because of the manufacturing process, even the producer doesn't know what's really on the final, released disc.
There's no way of knowing, because there's no perfect replay chain.
You will never know what's on the disc.
You will never know if you are reproducing it as faithfully as it was recorded.
Because of the manufacturing process, even the producer doesn't know what's really on the final, released disc.
There's no way of knowing, because there's no perfect replay chain.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.